Prosecutors Told: 24 Hours To File Charges

The Chicago Police Department has said it will release individuals accused of felonies if the Cook County state`s attorney`s office doesn`t approve charges within 24 hours.

The new policy is part of a dispute over a nine-month-old court order requiring that felony suspects be brought to court for prompt hearings. The hearings were ordered to avoid potentially costly civil rights suits by defendants claiming unreasonable detention.

The state`s attorney`s office contends that 36 hours--not 24--is needed to allow prosecutors enough time to make decisions in close cases and not place the city and police department in jeopardy of being sued.

Long a target for federal civil rights suits, the city last week was stung by a federal ruling declaring unconstitutional the practice of holding misdemeanor suspects while waiting for fingerprint checks. That ruling, if upheld on appeal, could open the door to thousands of lawsuits by people who were kept waiting in jail even though they had the money to post bond.

City Corporation Counsel Judson Miner and Police Supt. Fred Rice sent a letter in July to State`s Atty. Richard M. Daley stating that suspects will be released if Daley`s office is unable to make ``timely`` decisions to approve charges.

In the last few months, police officers have brought defendants to court without state`s attorney approval, but many judges have refused to hear the cases. So far, police say, approval has eventually been obtained, and no suspects have been released.

The city believes that it has to release suspects because detention without charge would invite federal civil rights lawsuits that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

``My client, the police department, is liable, and I have to give them the best advice,`` said Deputy Corporation Counsel Matthew Piers. ``We will release the arrestee.``

The dispute originated in separate class action lawsuits, filed by attorneys Thomas Peters and Kenneth Flaxman, alleging that thousands of suspects had been held for as long as two or three days without appearing before a judge. The suits charged the city and police department were in violation of a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring that defendants arrested without a warrant be given prompt hearings.

Peters` lawsuit was settled when Acting First Municipal District Judge Donald P. O`Connell issued an order in January requiring that the hearings be held promptly. And in June, U.S. District Judge George N. Leighton, ruling on Flaxman`s case, declared unconstitutional the practice of allowing criminal suspects to be detained without charge for extended periods.

Even before Leighton`s ruling, the police, the city and the state`s attorney`s office were attempting to carry out O`Connell`s order. But the time frame became a sticking point.

As a result, police have brought defendants to court within 24 hours without state`s attorney approval. But O`Connell said, ``Many of the judges have taken the position that until charges have been filed (by the state`s attorney) they have nothing before them to rule on or to determine.``

The judges have been placing the cases at the end of their daily schedule to give the state`s attorney time to think the matter over. So far, approval has been granted in those cases, O`Connell said.

However, Peters fears that defendants will be released unless an agreement is reached. ``The state`s attorney`s office has the ability to charge people, but they are leaving the city holding the bag for unreasonable detention while they try to develop a better case to improve their statistics,`` he said.

``The net result is that--probably very soon--it will result in the release of violent dangerous criminals,`` Peters said. ``It undermines the good efforts of the police department.``

``It`s ridiculous,`` he said. ``A police officer risks his life to make an arrest, and an assistant state`s attorney doesn`t want to approve the charges until he has an ironclad case.``

Edwin Bishop, an assistant police superintendent, said that only a small number of cases are involved and no suspects have yet been released. He conceded, though, that release of suspects ``is a possibility.``

``The state`s attorney typically feels that there is insufficient information to charge a person,`` he said. ``What that translates to is that there is insufficient information to prove the cases.``

Piers also suggested that a reason for a reluctance by the state`s attorney`s office to approve the filing of felony charges within 24 hours was a concern over a poor conviction rate.

``The state`s attorney wants a higher level of certainty`` before approving charges, Piers said. ``They want to keep their conviction rate as high as possible.``

Jay Magnuson, chief of the state`s attorney`s criminal prosecutions division, scoffed at that suggestion. ``That`s utterly false. That`s an unfair statement because we are in an ethical bind.``